HKSAR v. Cheung Chun Kit
|
DCCC 537/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 537 OF 2014 ____________
____________
__________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE __________________________ The defendant is charged with 2 offences of "Burglary" (Charges 1 and 2); an offence of "Criminal Damage" (Charge 3); and an offence of "Attempted Burglary" (Charge 4). 2.He pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2 and 4. The prosecution applied to leave Charge 3 in the court file; not to be proceeded against the defendant without leave of court. I granted the application. Summary of Facts The Burgled Premises 3.Flat B, 8th Floor, Kapok Mansion, No.123 Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan was sub-divided into Rooms B1, B2, B3 and B3A. Each room had its own wooden door, which could be locked by a key at the doorknob. 4.PW1's (Madam TONG) mother owned all 4 rooms in the above flat. PW1 was responsible for taking care of the rooms. PW2 (Madam WONG) was the tenant of Room B1; and the defendant, Room B2. Room B3 was unoccupied and Room B3A was used as a storeroom by PW1. Charge 1 5.One day in early March 2014, PW1 was cleaning Room B3A with her husband. They noticed some prizing marks on the wooden door near the doorknob. Nothing was found missing. Charge 4 6.In the morning on 22 April 2014, PW2 locked the wooden door of Room B1 before she left for work. She returned late at night and went straight to bed. In the following morning, she noticed some prizing marks near the doorknob of her room door and the doorknob was loose. PW2 had to go to work. Her son came to check the room and fixed the door. He also reported the matter to the Police. Nothing was missing from the room. Charge 2 7.After hearing about the prizing marks found in Room B1, PW1 checked Room B3 and also found prizing marks on the wooden door near the doorknob. Nothing was found missing. Arrest and Admissions 8.About 9:00 pm on 27 April 2014, police officers saw the defendant entering into Kapok Mansion. They stopped and searched him. Gloves were found on him. Upon enquiry, the defendant stated that he was living in Room B2. He admitted having "done something" to Rooms B3 and B3A. Under caution, he admitted that about 3 months ago, he used a screwdriver to break into Room B3A to look for valuable items as he got no money. But he found nothing and left. This is Charge 1. 9.The defendant also admitted that on 16 April 2014, he entered into Room B3, which was not locked, to steal but discovered that it was vacant. He did not steal anything. This is Charge 2. 10.In a subsequent interview, the defendant admitted that on 22 April 2014, he attempted to break into Room B1 to steal using a screwdriver, but was unable to get in. This is Charge 4. Room B2 (the defendant's room) was later searched. He pointed out the screwdriver which he used in committing the offences. Mitigation & Sentence 11.The defendant is now 19 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. YIP informed me that the defendant's father passed away some 6 years ago. At the age of 18, the defendant wanted an independent life and moved away from home. Mr. YIP stated that the defendant's family members are supportive of him. A bundle of mitigation letters written by them was placed before me; their contents are duly noted. 12.Mr. YIP submitted that the defendant committed the present offences out of impulse without realizing the seriousness of the offences. Mr. YIP stressed that no one was injured or alarmed during the offences; and that no properties were stolen. 13.Owing to the defendant's age, I called for a series of pre-sentencing reports. Rehabilitation Centre/Detention Centre/Training Centre Suitability Report indicated that he is mentally and physically fit for all 3 institutions, but more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre. 14.I am aware of the sentencing tariff for domestic burglaries. I have borne in mind the length of the prison term the defendant is likely to receive had he been over 21. On the other hand, I cannot overlook his age and need for rehabilitation. I have reminded myself that correctional institutions such as Detention Centres exist for the benefit of young offenders. These institutions play an important role in our penal system. 15.The officer who wrote the report considers Detention Centre more suitable for the defendant. I would not hide the fact that the defendant's age and personal circumstances played a determining role which spared him the punishment of immediate imprisonment. After careful consideration, I, with some reluctance, have decided to make a Detention Centre Order, which will be the sentences for Charges 1, 2 and 4. I believe a Detention Centre Order will benefit him most in terms of disciplinary training, reformation and punishment.
|